Recent content by my2cts

That is an important observation. Indeed, nearly all solutions of the Schrodinger equation are unphysical. Only an infinitesimal subset is correct. We know from experiment that we must normalize, but we have no fundamental equation that produces normalized solutions only.

I am fully aware of the physical complexities and advanced features of atoms and the solar system, by the way. I just challenge that they are relevant here. Still, I was unaware that the threads have actual levels. My mistake. My argument ends here and now as I don't do "B" discussions.

I would need a definition of that as well. LIGO is a tool to observe systems much less "controlled" than the solar system, namely coalescing black holes. It does not get any worse. Besides, whether physicists are able to measure it or not, is irrelevant to the question if cosmic expansion...

than for example the effect gravitational waves. "Attempting to measure a change in arm length 1,000 times smaller than a proton means that LIGO has to be " etc. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo Yet LIGO measures GWs. Immeasurability is a practical problem and does not imply...

Please specify the complexities and more advanced details, if necessary with references. Keep the quality of this up !

Define immeasurable. Besides immeasurable is not the same as nonexistent. We cannot measure planets in distant galaxies, but we know they are there. "trying" to expand ? And how would "other factors [] override this"? I hope you mean conservation of energy and momentum. That's my point.

Small but nonzero. What is not measurable today, is tomorrow. See the LIGO case. Indeed. Expansion of a hydrogen atom, or the orbit of the Earth, requires energy. However that argument holds at any scale. Do you have a reference for this ?

Interesting discussion. Are you saying that electromagnetic fields inside atoms do not expand but such fields in between galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars perhaps or even planets , do ? At what scale does this transition from expansion to non-expansion occur ?

I like the Landau and Lifshitz treatment of GR. See https://archive.org/details/TheClassicalTheoryOfFields . Good luck ... you still have a lot of time ahead of you ...

The magnetic field is by definition the part of the force that does not perform work. When work is involved you need to consider the electric field because your magnet is moving.

Please avoid feet, furlongs, etc. when discussing astronomy, nor any of the other length units listed here and here :smile: .

Check your premise, you are using the wrong number. No Nobel prize, yet :-) .

@OP What laws of reflection are you talking about and how are they "contrary" ?

Define "Incapabatable", "correct" and "inificacation".

An analysis of exactly how "a magnet ... is used to magnetize another piece of metal" will reveal the answer to you. Energy is required to magnetize a material, that much is certain.